but the destruction of mahometism can come from a traditionalist rechristianization + a new counter-reform, resulting in moslems seeing what Christians really are

and moslems that are westernized and consumerists would see how shit they morally are

and how carnal their religion is

Yeah their religion is spiritually empty

Is it ecumenicalism if I sat next to a rc priest on a park bench?

Asking for a friend

https://www.facebook.com/743870385730868/photos/a.743901952394378/1835510529900176/?type=3&theater

Afrikaans

I can tell by the double negatives

Hey fellas, Catholic here trying to return to the Church. Is the "resistance" position tenable? I see arguments on both sides but its unclear to me who is correct, people like Sedes who say its impossible for popes to be heretics or more mainline traditionalists who say that popes can maintain jurisdiction while being heretical. I basically don't want to become a fullblown sede/schismatic but I find it hard not to see the current popes as being in severe error.
Anyone have any good arguments regarding this stuff? If the position is untenable then I see it as invalidating catholicism and I'd probably become an <:orthokike:291522285020512256> or something, but I want to find a philosophically consistent position that allows for tradition with spiraling into sedevacautism

Sensus Fidelium has good vids on this topic

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/but-the-pope-said-so-excuses-that-may-not-help-on-judgment-day

This was a good article, I thought.

Yes, we want to remain in the one true Church. *But* at the same time if the leaders are wrong and we are able to do the research ourselves, we should do so, and hold to Christ's teaching.

@Mephisto there's some interesting stuff about that issue by a Frenchman, but it would take me ages to translate it tbh

long story short he says we cannot say that the pope isn't the pope as long as he doesn't proclaim a heresy in the forms of an infaillible statement

so outside of that context then the pope can be a heretic

and ill read the article above in minute

__but__ that you can shift towards rationalism if you reject magisterium from your own point of view (comparing it to the constant doctrine)

so he says that in order not to fall in the two extremes (modernism/sedevacantism), you have to be prudent

and that you need to accept the __hypothesis__ (not fact, except if it is made clear) of both the possibility of a vacance of the Siege / possibility that they were just bad popes

but in the end, it will end in the same way, the solution will come from the Church

be it anathema or condemnations

he says that the best position is that of the Resistance, but that their full rejection of the hypothesis of the vacance of the throne of Peter is questionable

That's basically the position I would ideally take, I'm more wondering what the historical case for it all is.
Like for example there are historical documents saying the latin mass can't be changed, that touching the eucharist with unordained hands is forbidden etc. and all of this happens nowadays.
So we either have to view this stuff as stuff that shouldnt be happen and should eventually be changed back or we have to view it as invalidating the modern church's teachings, as far as I can see.

Sedes will argue for the latter but I guess I'm wondering if theres a historical argument for the former

tbh I find SSPX nice since my priests are very trad ones

and are compassionate with sedes instead of spitting on them

but I'm not sede

Well what worries me about SSPX is that theyre not in full communion with Rome, correct?

but I guess it can depend on the parishes

well, how would they not be ?

they are _una cum_

I thought that SSPX wasn't in communion with the vatican

that's an argument from the anti sspx trads I guess

they usually tell us that we are in a schismatic position, but I fail to see how

especially since the bishops' excommunications were lifted, and that more and more they say that the sacraments (penance, marriage) are valid etc

and even licit

Well I don't judge people in SSPX but for me the position I'm trying to work my way towards is this:
insofar as the pope and conciliar church is not being heretical it still has jurisdiction. To be in communion with this church is to be in communion with the one true church, even though evil people and heretics have infiltrated it

Yeah but if SSPX isn't in full communion with Rome then is the Blessed Sacrament even valid there?

If it was I probably would have joined SSPX awhile ago

but from what I can tell the Church doesnt want to bring a strong condemnation down on them to avoid a conflict with 500000 people, but they are technically schismatic in that they aren't in communion with Rome